We all should know about the recent traffic death of the pedestrian who was hit by a van. We also probably know that the driver did not have a license nor was he insured.
Now we find out that not only is he not being charged with anything, let alone murder, but he is excused for this behavior by his step-father. The article below is from today's Statesman-Journal.
The stepfather of a Woodburn man accused of driving without a license when his van hit and killed a pedestrian in Salem spoke out Tuesday in defense of his stepson.
Rick Meyer said his stepson, Sean Lee Hagen, has a right to drive whether or not he has a license.
"The first personal constitutional right is the right to travel," said Meyer, who also lives in Woodburn.
Hagen, 27, was driving a van that killed homeless veteran George Lester Bertoglio, 77, at the corner of Liberty and Center streets July 31.
Hagen is charged with failure to carry and display a license, failure to yield to a pedestrian and driving uninsured.
Police did not file criminal charges against him because they found no evidence of neglect or reckless driving. The Marion County District Attorney's office is reviewing the case.
The Oregon Department of Transportation says Hagen has never held a license. The agency has placed 16 suspension orders against him since 1999, based on traffic violations, failure to appear in court and failure to pay fines or comply with court orders.
Meyer said Hagen is a good driver despite never having a license, and said last week's crash would have happened whether or not his stepson had a license and insurance.
"The results wouldn't be any different," Meyer said. "I'm really sorry about that, but it wouldn't bring him back."
Hagen hasn't returned several phone calls from the Statesman Journal.
Hagen wasn't able to get a license because of the escalating fines stacked against him by ODOT, Meyer said.
"He's poor and he couldn't pay a traffic ticket," Meyer said. "You get one fine that goes to two fines to three fines."
Meyer said motor vehicle laws are unfair because driving is essential to earning a living. "If you can't travel, you don't get to eat," he said. "I believe driving is not a privilege because you can't live without it."
Which constitution was he reading? If he would open a history book and actually READ the constitution, he would find out that first right actually pertains to freedom of speech: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".
The man is dead and all step dad can say is: "I'm really sorry about that"?
We also found out this week that this is not his first killing. He was involved in a traffic death several years ago, and in fact was himself injured and he and his step dad sought financial gain through a lawsuit against the dead person's family or as dear old dad put it "anyone with money". The suit was dropped by the attorney they hired. The step dad was angry at the attorney for dropping it and was quoted as saying "they couldn't find anyone with money".
Not only will this man not be charged with murder but he WILL be driving again. What makes you think this will stop him? We MUST take this man off the street. I advise writing our local newspaper and the attorney general's office. Something must be done!
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
When Murder is Legal....
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
That's just disturbing.
Check out the posts on S-J online regarding this article. Not a whole of sympathy for this guy or his step-dad. On a side note, if the Constitution states that I can freely exercise my religion, why can't I pray in school with my students? Does being a public employee (paid for while public tax dollars) deny my access to myConstitutional rights?
Mick, I have been watching the posts at s-j. Some are pretty good and some are pretty whack!
Amen to your last part. But then, no one can quote the constitution anymore anyway.
When are you going to get back to posting pictures of your butt and asking us to tell you how to swing?
Paul, weren't you the understudy for "Shallow Hal"?
Paul,
I'ma laughin', and laughin' hysterically!!!!
Shifting topics here to your poll question; I voted in accordance with your wording "who will", not who I want! Hilary's too cunning and vicious to allow Obama to outwit her. However, I feel he's more articulate and genuine. I'm sorry to see you didn't put up Tom Tancredo. IMO, he's the best candidate because he's very clear and firm about what he believes in. I want to elect a leader, not a spineless suit who sways to the loudest group. I think Guiliani will win because of his history with the 9/11 attacks and his INability to answer questions directly. Fred Thompson will be a close 2nd mainly because of his "screen" recognition. Keeping in mind that a great percentage of the voting public are sheep; easily swayed by speeches, polls and yard signs.
Mick, I am glad you pointed out what I wrote: "who do you THINK will be Prez". Not who you WANT.
Great post you make.
Although I do admire Fred Thompson (and not just because he's a great "DA") but because I liked his style as a Senator and I like his no nonsense approach to most issues.
Tancredo is more my style, bomb the mosques and carpet bomb Iraq, Iran, Afganhistan, North Korea and anyone else who harbors terrorists, but this country is too whiny for that.
If only Joshua and his boys had done what they were told to do. Hmmm
Post a Comment